Labour Party, Lib Dem Party - where to now.

Thanks jen; I must have got him mixed up with Kinnock Jnr but assumed he would be standing this time round.

The SNP has been very successful in gaining half of the votes in Scotland. Although this lead to them getting 56 out of 59 Scottish seats - an unfair result, I obviously do not blame the SNP for that.

What I do blame Nicola Sturgeon for is her ill-judged strident rhetoric which gave the Tory campaigners all the ammunition they needed. Millions of English voters were told repeatedly by the large army of Tory canvassers that she had said the SNP would work with Labour to "lock the Tories out of Downing Street forever" and this scare tactic worked.

Paradoxically the SNP now have virtually no clout in parliament, in comparison with the result we might have had with a Tory minority government, but that would also have given Labour, the LibDems and others some clout, so, as I am becoming cynical in my old age, I do wonder whether that fatal remark was cock-up or conspiracy?

Tony Benn used to say 'be critical, not cynical' varian [but I agree, it is difficult not to be cynical].

Hilary Benn had a majority of nearly 38% over the Tory candidate, taking nearly 55% of the vote, Tegan.

Twaddle varian

Stop blaming Nicola Sturgeon for the success of the SNP - that is totally illogical ...or are you still blaming her for the English failure to vote in a Labour government.

You seem to have your knickers in a twist and your logic in an even greater twist!

Actually, the Labour vote in England went up more than the Tory vote. It's just that the Tories had a higher baseline.
I blame Miliband for boxing himself into a corner. I bet Labour will work with the SNP now.

Oh dear Anya, you obviously haven't followed this argument.

Speaking as a Scot with long experience of politics in Scotland and England, I have explained that Nicola Sturgeon is obviously a successful politician, gaining the support of about half of Scottish voters but her strident rhetoric claiming that her party and the Labour party could "lock the Tories out of Downing Street forever" was a gift to the Tories who could use that claim to frighten enough English voters (who don't want to see separatists in a position of power) into electing a Tory majority government.

The SNP has one single aim - to destroy the UK. Whether by design or accident NS has made this more likely by helping the Tories to get elected.

If you think she has any other agenda, I recommend that you read the article by Ian Birrell in today's edition of the "I"

Varian - that would be Ian Birrell speech writer for David Cameron?

exactly right, Granny twice, - a man who has seen the machieavellian workings of the Tories from the inside and can spot a stitch up from a mile off.

Is that the "I" that told readers to vote Tory at the last minute because the owner is a nondom? Haven't bought it since.

Varian I admit I cannot follow your 'arguement' .... as I said it's illogical and as for Birrell sums him up!

Anyway, I'm not going to continue a discussion which is totally pointless.

Just because you have explained something how you see it, varian, does not make it the absolute truth.

Whoops varian yet again you find yourself at odds with the majority.
I reiterate - Scottish independence will not destroy the uk as Wales, NI and England will function perfectly well with a new version of the UK while Scots get on with their lives too. No reason why we can't be good neighbours as the vast majority of Scots will be happy to live and let live since this debate is not about ancient emnity but modern independence and also ultimately cooperation.

Actually, the Labour vote in England went up more than the Tory vote. It's just that the Tories had a higher baseline.

I didn't realise that Jen

I blame Miliband for boxing himself into a corner. I bet Labour will work with the SNP now.

I would like to see a coalition of Social Democratic parties in the UK Jen but that would mean Labour would have to become more social democratic than socialist and Plaid would have to actually say what they are other than "for Wales". I do wish Labour would stop talking about moving to the "centre", wherever that may be and talk about and describe social democracy as seen in the Nordic nations ... but perhaps I am alone in this

One of the things the left of centre needs to do is listen to the voter.

What I would really like to know is if a party stood for justice and equality but also recognised that people have aspiration to succeed would this cut it?

I think that I would like to explore more the mindset in the Scandinavian countries who seem to me have it about right - although at this moment in time I am happy to stand corrected.

Perhaps those Grans who voted for the Tories would like to say what were the positive things that attracted them, rather than what the negatives were e.g. Labour wouldn't do it for the economy etc.

The United Kingdom is one united country - the clue is in the title.

The SNP want to destroy the union but fortunately the majority of Scottish voters rejected separation in the referendum. None of us, north or south of the border should have to chose between being Scottish and British or become foreigners in our own country.

As Alex Salmond promised that this was a "once in a generation" or maybe even "once in a lifetime" decision, none of us grannies are likely to see another referendum. I am assuming he didn't lie.

I know I don't know enough about the Scandinavian countries Whitewave, and, like you I would like someone to enlighten me - a sort of idiots guide would be great

What attracts me of the little I know is that they all pay into their tax system according to what they earn but they then draw out in a relative way too. So if you lost your job you I seem to remember being told that you got something like two thirds of your previous income. This encourages people to believe paying their high taxes is worthwhile. As has been said many times before we seem to expect US taxes and Swedish benefits.

I think that I must be getting wires crossed here. Labour too far to the left? They are so far right that they are not new Labour but new Tories. Perhaps it is true to say Labour lost in Scotland as it was too far to the right while they lost in the rest of the country as they were too far left! As for the lib dems if you are prepared to get into bed with the Tories for you wee (very wee) bit of power letting down everyone who voted for you then they deserve everything they get.

The United Kingdom is one united country - the clue is in the title.

... and I can read too varian. I do not believe all the people who voted SNP were voting in any way to leave the union; I believe they were voting for Scotland. Some will think leaving is the only way and some will have been attracted by the one other thing the SNP are offering - that they see themselves as a Social Democratic party in the nature of the Nordik/Scandinavian countries. They obviously did not believe they could get this, and the acknowledgement of Scotland as a different entity from Labour and they were never going to vote Tory.

If either the SNP or a Scottish Labour Party made people feel they were individual but part of the union, and that social democracy was on offer, then I believe we could keep Scotland in the union. I would like to feel that the unique needs of Yorkshire were cared for by a grouping of Yorkshire MPs, Tory, Labour and Liberal as well as being part of the UK so I can understand why Scotland feels this way.

What I would really like to know is if a party stood for justice and equality but also recognised that people have aspiration to succeed would this cut it?

Yes whitewave.
But this time around, there wasnt really any party doing that, which meant that a lot of voters who didnt know who to vote for, had to make do. And on balance, did not want to lose the latter, even if they had to compromise.
A poor country benefits no one. A poor country is terrible, absolutely awful for the vulnerable.

Doesn't the problem starts by what do you mean by "justice", what do you mean by "equality" and what do you mean by "aspiration" whitewave and "soontobe". I think you might find that each of the parties faithful would say that was what they stood for.

Even the definition of a "poor country" could be disputed soontobe. Goodness how depressing - sorry

gracesgran perhaps we could start then by having a discussion about equality and justice.

For me they mean that we ensure the opportunity for everyone in the UK. And when looking at a political party, their intentions and actions I should ask whether these are consistent with the full development of the population as a whole or whilst benefiting some, will harm others or at the very least ignore others.

I think that we should recognise that good government is founded on these principles and law , as only through law can he good of all not the interests of a few be secured.

Well that's a start!!

Yet another notion that is currently being put forward as a "fact" rather than an "opinion". - that the Labour Party (and, by association , the left in general) is not the party of "aspiration".

Aspiration can mean a number of things. It may include getting a "high status" job, earning more money, buying a bigger house and private education, etc., etc. - and be largely self or family focused. It may also include maximising creative and practical talents, doing a job that is enjoyable and is felt to be useful, improving one's education and gaining qualifications, etc. I would think a lot of people aspire to some of these things, whatever their political leanings might be.

Some people's aspirations are limited by the circumstances in which they find themselves. People who have a physical illness or disability, or who have a chronic psychiatric disorder, or who have a learning disability/difficulty, or who have been brought up in care, in overcrowded and sub-standard housing or in poverty, etc. etc., are more likely to have fewer educational qualifications and be in low paid, precarious employment. Is this because they are not aspirational, or is it because they start from way back on the race track and are not given adequate hope and support to even aspire to, let alone achieve, particular goals.

Some prominent Labour figures are also jumping on the bandwagon, and it seems to me that they are the ones that are more focused on their own political advancement than on protecting everyone in this country, including those who, without support, will see many aspirations as unreachable.

Your last paragraph.
It isnt an either or. It is both.